Veto Players and Civil War Duration

Civil wars show a remarkable variation in how long they last. Some end within days; others continue for decades. What explains the extreme intractability of some wars while others are resolved quickly? This article argues that conflicts with multiple actors who must approve a settlement (veto players) are longer because there are fewer acceptable agreements, information asymmetries are more acute, and shifting alliances and incentives to hold out make negotiation more difficult. This veto player approach to explaining variation in civil war duration is tested using a new dataset containing monthly data on all parties to each civil war begun since World War II. The statistical analysis shows a strong correlation between the number of veto players and the duration of civil war.     

Key longitudinal-experimental studies in criminology

Following the tradition of Joan McCord's work, this paper reviews longitudinal-experimental studies in criminology with community samples of at least 100 persons, follow-up periods of at least 5 years, personal interviews, and measures of offending. The main advantages of such studies are in investigating both the natural history of development (including the effects of risk/protective factors and life events) and the impact of interventions on offending. This paper also reviews advantages and problems of prospective longitudinal surveys, randomized experiments, and longitudinal-experimental studies in criminology. Four key longitudinal-experimental studies were conducted by Joan McCord, Richard Tremblay, Lawrence Schweinhart and David Olds. Other studies have been conducted, or are currently under way, but no criminological study has yet been published with several years of personal data on participants both before and after an intervention.Joan McCord Award Lecture given at the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada.     

The UN Human Rights Norms for Corporations: The Private Implications of Public International Law

Though many years in the making, the UN Human Rights Norms forCorporations only registered on the radars of most states, corporationsand civil society organisations in August 2003 when they beganto move up the ladder of the United Nation's policy-making processes.Since then they have been subject to intense, and sometimesintemperate, debate, scrutiny and controversy. A particularlegal feature of the deliberations has been the focus on theclosely related questions of the legal standing of the Normsin their present format (namely, an imperfect draft, and therefore,of no direct legal force), and what they might become (possibly—thoughnot likely soon—a treaty that speaks to corporations butbinds states). A potent mix of distrust and suspicion, vestedinterests, politics and economics has given rise to a greatdeal of grand-standing and cant concerning these questions andhow they might be answered. In this article, the authors explorethe history of the Norms and the form and content of the debatethat surrounds them, in their attempt to disentangle the legalfrom the rest. That said, the article also focuses on the realpoliticking of the circumstances in which the Norms now findthemselves and it seeks to offer some guidance as to where theNorms—or at least their substance, if not their form—mightgo from here.     

Who Do You Trust? Ethnicity and Trust in Bosnia and Herzegovina

This article examines the question of trust in Bosnia and Herzegovina with a special focus on the role of ethnicity. We find generalised trust to be low and declining in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, generalised trust is negatively affected by the degree of ethnic heterogeneity in the region. However, a further examination of trust reveals a more complex relationship between ethnicity and trust: people tend to show low levels of trust in all other people irrespective of their ethnic belongings. We argue that ethnic distribution might capture some other regional specific characteristics that also affect the level of trust.     

An experimental study of a therapeutic boot camp: Impact on impulses, attitudes and recidivism

Two hundred thirty four adult male inmates entering prison were randomly assigned to an early release program in either a correctional boot camp or a large, traditional prison in the Maryland state correctional system. Boot camp releasees had marginally lower recidivism compared to those released from the traditional prison. A pre-test, post-test self report survey indicated the boot camp program had little impact on criminogenic characteristics except for a lowering of self control. In contrast, inmates in prison became more antisocial, lower in self control, worse in anger management, and reported more criminal tendencies by the end of their time in prison. Criminogenic attitudes and impulses were significantly associated with recidivism. The impact of the boot camp diminished to non-significance when antisocial attitudes or anger management problems were added to the models predicting recidivism. Implications for jurisdictions considering whether to operate correctional boot camps are discussed.